i am upgrading from compact to DSLR. pls suggest me a lense for canon 60D. considering i am not a pro photographer. but love to take quality images of all category.i wish to go for EF-S 18-200, which looks like all purpose lens ! helps me to carry a single lens where i go every time.

my worries:

1) Is this lens produce pics as bad as i seen on reviews (soft images)?2) How Does Non availability of USM matters?3) how about low lighting capture (mainly indoors)

though cam labs review helped me a lot but still not able to decide on ONE which i am looking for ... pls suggest

Three weeks ago I bought my first DSLR. Which happens to be the 60D. Doing a lot of research on which lens to go with first I decided on the EF-S 15 - 85 IS USM. I am quite happy with it, although I am very much in the learning stage. Luckily I have a willing participant for learning.

From all my research what I've learned is to spend the money on good lenses. Good lenses and cheapo body is better then good body and cheapo lens. Plus if you upgrade your body later you can bring along your expensive lenses!!

You may want to check the Canon sub-forum, where the 18-200mm and it's rivals have already been discussed in the recent past. I would be more likely to try the 18-135mm EF-S. I do not own one, but did try one in a camera store, while evaluating a pre-owned 7D. I do own a 28-135mm EF USM with IS, which was included as a kit lens with my first 7D. While it is not wide enough at 28mm to be a true all-around lens, I have found 135mm to usually be long enough for the times I want to zoom.

The lens that has many well-satisfied is the 15-85mm EF-S.

Indoors, I really do not like most zooms very much, as flash usually becomes necessary when shooting at the small aperture settings available with modestly-priced zoom lenses. (Zooms with larger apertures are very
expensive.) I do have a very good flash, a 580EX, but prefer to use available light, if possible.

I do have a Tamron 18-200mm zoom lens, but have found I just do not like the super-zoom concept very much. The zooms I actually use are the 10-22mm EF-S and the 28-135mm EF. My wife does like the super-zoom concept more, so the Tamron now stays on the 40D that has become our back-up camera.

To me clear, I am no expert, but a serious beginner.

Lens rental is an option in many locations, which can help one decide, by providing several days or weeks of trial.

I couldn't give you any opinion on the Canon 18-200 as I've never used one and don't shoot with that mount. However, I just wanted to share a different opinion so you can see a few different sides to the argument and help decide for yourself. I am a semi-pro enthusiast and have been into photography for decades, and I have been using an ultrazoom lens for over 3 years now...i couldn't imagine not having one in my bag as a go-to lens when I need to travel light, need maximum variability and flexibility in a small package, go to risky spots where a bag of lenses wouldn't be advisable, and sometimes just when I feel like lightening my load. Just so you don't think I'm someone who only uses such a lens and therefore doesn't know any better what I'm missing, I actually have over 20 lenses for 2 systems, and am a big fan of dedicated primes. I also have shorter zooms, ultrawide zooms, telephoto zooms, and TCs. While I know I've got some lenses that can do better at a particular focal length or aperture, I still would never think of replacing my ultrazoom lens, as it's the quality and ability it has throughout such a massively convenient range that sells it for me. If I know I'm out to photograph, and know what I'll be shooting, I'll use a dedicated prime or several specific lenses to do the job. But sometimes I don't have those specifics in mind, and it's nice to have a lens onboard for when I spontaneously see a neat bug sitting on a leaf, and then a nice cloud formation on the horizon, and then a bird 50 feet away, and decide to shoot them all, very unplanned. I can only do that by having a lens like this, that can go from closeup to wide landscape to zoom wildlife in mere seconds with no lens change.

It's an option worth considering. And the quality can be very good indeed - much criticism is leveed at these types of lenses being extremely inferior to a short, fast zoom or dedicated prime, but I find they are quite close performers if you get the right one, know its sweet spots, and apply a little knowledge and skill to the right settings and exposure...enough to make lovely prints, or even get published in national mags.

I too am new to the forum, and to the world of DSLR cameras.....I used a Nikon D5000 before, but came with the 18-55 kit lens, and did not want to purchase and invest before being sure about the brand.

I have recently purchase the exact rig that you are looking at....Canon EOS 60D, 18-200 lens from BestBuy on Saturday - so I have only had really 1-2 days of shooting with it.

I think that for an all round lens, its good - for sure there are many other lenses that would be much better but as a beginner, I wanted to have a lens that I can learn on, and not be limited as far as range etc.

I used my buddy's Nikon with a 18-55 & 55-200 last Monday for my Daughter's grad (before I purchased my camera), abd because of the range (close and far), that I was shooting, I needed to change the lenses at least 5-6 times.

While this is normal, and really not bad (the lenses don't take that long to change), as a beginner, I really wanted to focus on understanding the camera functions, settings and composition, and not worry about the lens that I have on at the moment.

The 18-200 does give me the versatility that I need, but not being the fastest lens, there will be some limitations (distortions etc - there is a review on cameralabs.com). I know that I will probably purchase a more dedicated lenses in the future, but this one gives decent shots, and allows me the time to really learn and enjoy the camera.

I can share some pics that I have taken - but you have to remember that I am not a pro, and really used DSLR's for less than 2 weeks in TOTAL! To be honest, the shots I took came out well, and there was no really issues with any of them (except of lack of experience on my end)

Hope this helps.

Oh, and I might as well mention, because everyone asks - the difference I found in the Nikon and Canon, and my preference - as a noob:

The Nikon and Canon, really very similar in quality etc - the menu system in the Canon looks more professional, and I like the dedicated buttons. There were some things on the Nikon that I liked - sometimes easier to transverse (CERTAIN menus/settings), but that was it. I went to BB to purchase a D5100 and held the Canon becuase it came with the 18-200, and loved the feel - to be honest I never even read the D60 reviews etc - I have read ALL of the D5100 reviews - because I was settled on that - but the very solid feel of the Canon won me over in the store.

Now that I have used both to some degree, more on the Nikon than the Canon, I prefer the Canon - but as every noob out there with no committment in lenses on either brand, they want to make sure they get the BEST bang for their buck. Really each gives slight differences in their shots and how they handle different lighting conditions - all you need to do is understand what settings to use to get the results you want from the camera you are using and you can almost get identical shots on either platform. My only hesitation that I had going with Canon was that I have an uncle who beleives in Nikon and 3 of my friends use Nikon - so there was an opportunity to learn the camera from them and borrow equipment as I needed - but you cannot get over something that feels right for you.

As a Nikon user, excuse me for my lack of Canon knowledge, however I could recommend a few lenses. Nikon makes some similar lenses to Canon's selection, they both make 18-55mm kit lenses, Canon makes an 18-135 which is similar to Nikon's 18-105, they both make 18-200s, and Nikon's 16-85 is similar to Canon's 15-85. Being an owner of the 16-85, I could highly recommend the 15-85 from Canon to anybody. I looked at some of the kit lenses that came with the camera, but I wanted something with a bit higher optical quality. The 18-200, while convenient and offered decent enough quality, was still subpar to the 16-85, so I settled for the higher quality of the 16-85 but shorter range.
I'm glad that I didn't go for the 18-200, while it would've been a nice convenient lens to have, I find that I rarely ever need a telephoto lens for the subject that I photograph, and if I do need one I'll mount it before whatever event that I'll be using it for begins. In fact, my 200mm prime lens recently broke and I've still been doing fine without it. Now those are the subjects that I photograph, if you do lots of both wide and telephoto work at the same time, the 18-200 would be an excellent lens for you, but I personally prefer the higher quality 16-85, rorthe 15-85 for Canon. I'm not saying that the 18-200 is a bad lens, but if you don't need the extra 115mm over the 15-85 for everyday shots, I wouldn't go for it.

If you want the best optical quality in your lens, I'd recommend investing in a prime. They're generally cheaper than zoom lenses, have better quality optics, but are less convenient as they don't zoom, they simply have a fixed focal length. I'd recommend Canon's 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 if you're on a budget, or perhaps Canon's 35mm f/2. Those lenses are also great because if you decide to upgrade to a full frame Canon in the future, your lenses would still work.

On a side note, remember that it's you, the photographer, who takes the shots and not the camera. While some people may post beautiful pictures that they take with an 18-55mm $150 kit lens, if you give a completely unexperienced photographer a $1800 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, chances are they won't be able to get very many good pictures. Perhaps consider investing in photography classes as well, or pick up a good photography book to help improve your technique.

Hi, im also looking at getting a 60D, I think i am going with the canon 18-135mm, i am slightly worried about the lack of USM. But I've been told by the many reviews on the internet that its not a problem. Ive been told that the 18-135mm is better, sharper and quicker at focusing than the 18-200. Personally looking at the sample pictures on the camera labs blog of both lenses i don't think the extra 65 mmm is worth the extra £100. (i did it by roughly overlaying the images)
Im intending to use it as a lens that will tell me what i really need. Its all purpose and it will help me get into DSLR photography.
Whatever I get will be an upgrade from my Ixus!!!